Case 1401592/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jeremy Bazinaw v Royal United Bath NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 1401592/2025
- Decision date
- 31 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge David Hughes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Jeremy Bazinaw
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant applied for interim relief following dismissal by the Respondent. He said he had made disclosures, including about an alleged assault by a colleague and alleged retaliation, and the Respondent did not dispute that the disclosures could be protected disclosures. The Respondent said he had been dismissed for gross misconduct following an incident on 29 December 2024.
The tribunal considered whether it was likely that the Claimant would establish that the reason, or principal reason, for dismissal was protected disclosures. Having reviewed the video evidence and the dismissal context, the tribunal considered it likely that a future tribunal would find the Respondent's conclusions about the Claimant's language, professionalism, investigation and dismissal response were open to it.
The tribunal stated that it could not find it likely that the tribunal determining the complaint would decide that the dismissal was caused, wholly or principally, by the disclosures. The application for interim relief was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment dismissed the Claimant's application for interim relief under section 128 ERA 1996. It did not finally determine the underlying complaints. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 128 ERA 1996
- section 129 ERA 1996
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz
- Taplin v C Shippam Ltd
- likely
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.